Subject: Re: Bad response...
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Thor Lancelot Simon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/29/2004 22:20:33
On Sun, Aug 29, 2004 at 11:59:27PM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Aug 2004, Arto Huusko wrote:
> >On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> >>It's *obviously* not a good balance in there, for atleast my useage.
> >Well, it can be hardly expected that the defaults NetBSD has will be
> >right for everyone. And it seems that your usage is, at least slightly,
> I find it a bit strange if running a big program such as netscape
> parallell with a system build would be considered "uncommon usage".
> But what do I know?
I find it a bit strange that you'd expect to be able to run binaries 100
times as large as the average program was 10 years ago, while building the
operating system, whose sources are 10 times as large as they were, with
an optimizing compiler that works 10 times as hard to compile the same code,
while serving up files -- data files and binaries *both* often 100 times
as large as they were a decade ago -- to various other machines, with only
twice or perhaps four times the RAM a decent desktop *or* engineering
workstation *or* fileserver would have had then, and yet blame *the operating
system* when you experience the obvious symptoms of having a working set far,
far larger than the amount of physical RAM on the machine.
I find it even stranger that you are upset that even though it's possible
to _tune_ the operating system -- and easily, at that, by adjusting
anonmin/max and execmin/max -- for your unreasonable usage, these settings
are not the defaults. Honestly, $50-$100 of RAM would probably be the
best solution to your problem. You're trying to fit two hundred pounds of
stuff in a five pound sack; personally, I'd be glad I could cram it in there